Teachers’ leadership and students’ experience of group work., 2012, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice

Research confirming the students’ opinions about organisation conditions

Contemporary research vis-à-vis organisation of group work, for instance Baines, Blatchford, and Kutnick (2008) and Kutnick, Blatchford, and Baines (2002)) stresses the importance of finding an optimum combination of group size, mix of students, and nature of the task.


Group size. Previous studies of group work in schools show that the optimum size of groups of adults has been estimated to be five persons or fewer (Shaw, 1976; Brown, 2000). Larger groups have problems with processing information. Thus, the students’ experiences seem to be supported by research. Too large of groups can hinder participation in discussions (Gillies & Boyle, 2010; Lou et al., 1996; Webb, 1989). It has also been found that triads may result in
possible domination of the third member by the other two members, especially if there are two boys and one girl in the group (Cullingford, 1988; Slavin, 1990; Webb, 1991). An equal number is preferable.


Mix of members. Group composition may be carried out in several ways (Lou et al., 1996), but as Gillies and Boyle (2010) highlight, the formation of groups is often completed by the teacher without any further considerations for composition or group activity. If the allocation is self-assigned, there might be a higher risk of an increasing social division in the class based on, for instance, gender or ability (Blatchford et al., 2003) and also friendship or housing. Albeit, there are findings indicating that friendship may support both learning and non-task- related activities. Gillies and Boyle (2010) conclude that the evidence is ambiguous. A compromise or suggestion (Blatchford et al., 2003) is to include the students in the discussion and make a joint decision.

There is little evidence of grouping by ability (Hallam & Toutounji, 1996). Gender and friendship seems to be more important (Wheelan, 1996). However, some results indicate that students, in general, benefit from working in mixed-ability groups (Gillies & Boyle 2010). This is in particular true about high- and low-ability students that may profit from heterogeneous groups (Gillies & Boyle 2010; Lou et al., 1996). High-ability students seem to benefit from providing elaborated responses to low-ability students who, in turn, receive instructions and answers in language they are able to comprehend. Medium-ability students, on the other hand, may profit from homogenous groups. If medium-ability students actively participated in the group discussion, they may also benefit from group work.

The gender composition in groups is an issue that must be considered (Gillies & Boyle 2010). Gender-balanced groups appear to stimulate equal opportunities for girls as well as boys considering interaction and achievement. If the groups consisted of mostly one of the sexes, the boys outperformed the girls irrespective of ability. Hence, if the groups consisted of mostly boys, the girls were neglected, and if the opposite allocation existed, the girls spent the majority of time trying to include the boys in the group work.

Location. Making provision for a suitable group work context can also be discussed in terms of physical situation, for instance, noise (Davies, 1994). Concerning location, the open-plan design used in most classrooms, furnished for lecturers, might not be the best arrangement for group work. In order to encourage group work, it is important that the classroom contexts, for example, layout, furniture, and seating arrangements as well as the resources distributed, are organised to promote this work form (Baines, Blatchford, & Kutnick, 2008; Johnson & Johnson, 2008). One way of creating a calmer environment, as wished for by the students in this study, might be to increase proximity among students in the group. However, Baines et al. (2008) point to the teachers’ unwillingness to move the furniture in the classroom in order to provide seating appropriate for group work. Thus, an easygoing teacher may be a hindrance to arranging optimum conditions for the students’ group work.


Time. The division of lessons into separate periods of 45 to 60 minutes may be a hindrance to the group’s activities and work (Stevens, 2008). The students in this study tried to find strategies for increasing the allotted time by using breaks and lunches, which implies that teachers do not always think things through when assigning time for group work. According to Postholm (2008), the organisation and structuring of group work is of great importance when it comes to creating conditions in which learning will occur.
As evident from the presentation above, the students’ intuitive reflections on group work organisation coincide with scientific research.